| |
View
Point Abid
Ullah Jan
Dear Evangelicals !
The
New York Times reported on May 27th that you had an all-day seminar
on how to woo Muslims away from Islam in Ohio. (1) With due apology
from the rest of Muslim, I dare to speak on their behalf to congratulate
you for the successes you have made in achieving your objectives.
Your
teachers must be proud of you, who "urged a kindly approach,"
showing "Muslims love, charity and hospitality." Even
if you do not "carry copies of the New Testament to give
as gifts," your job is already well done.
The New York Times writes that your teacher "stressed the
need to avoid offending Muslims," yet "he projected
a snappy PowerPoint presentation showing passages from the Koran
that he said proved Islam was regressive, fraudulent and violent."
No way dear Evangelicals! It is kindness of Laurie Goodstein,
who thinks it might be offensive to Muslims. However, no, it is
not.
We do not mind it any more, because your brothers and sisters,
who you may not consider Evangelicals, and who may not consider
themselves neo-cons, are busy promoting the same ideas in more
subtle ways, days in and days out. Laurie Goodstein came right
up to your Church in Ohio to see what you were planning, but she
probably does not read the newspaper that besides employing her
leaves no stone unturned to propagate your messages, in more effective
words, in its editorials and columns through "impartial analysts"
such as Thomas L. Friedman and William Safire.
A more appropriate example is Laurie Goodstein herself. To make
her report do a real thought damage to its readers, she perfectly
decorated it with a collection of as many anti-Islam quotes from
different sources as she could. Your church meeting or proselytizing
Muslims do not do as much damage as this kind of poisoning reports
do. Present yourself a moderate, scapegoat Evangelicals and do
a damage, which is far more than all Evangelicals collective could
do - this is what hurts the Muslims. You or Osama is threatening
the future of humanity. It is the hypocrites, who say one thing
and mean another.
And believe me, we do not mind even what the New York Times say,
because we have our own Muslim brothers, who promote the same
ideas better than everyone else. You had "two pastors, a
school secretary and college students" in your seminar, but
the Muslims who have devoted their lives to spreading the same
message - that certain passages of Qur'an are not relevant to
the present day reality, all previous interpretations are no more
relevant, Muslims believing in fundamentals of faith are "fundamentalists,"
etc. - are sitting professors in your universities and scholars
of repute at your think tanks. They are effective only because
they know how to use a bit scholarly language, with a mix of some
Arabic words and even quotations from the Qur'an to prove all
that you have in your heart.
You have been insultingly labeled as neo-cons. But never mind.
We consider you neo-conquerors of the hearts of the neo-mods of
Islam - a superlative degree of ultra-moderates among us. Your
teacher told you that Qur'an says "slay them, slay the infidels!..[but]
in the Bible there are no words from Jesus saying we should kill
innocent people." Please visit the web sites of our neo-mod
Muslim brothers and you will see they have better argument than
your teacher.
They can prove that these verses of the Qur'an are applicable
no more. Those who apply them, regardless of what the status of
their suffering at the hands of the oppressors may be, are "radical
extremists." Now it is responsibility of the Christian world
to kill them, or cage them in Guantanamo bay. It has probably
adopted the message of Islam to the core after "literal interpretation"
of our "medieval texts."
Please write to New York Times that your teacher is not wrong.
Tell its editors that Muslims have evolved and the neo-mods among
them now believe that revenge, "rather than willingness to
compromise or submit to the victors, is the traditional response
of [only] theologically inclined Muslims to the defeat of Muslim
armies."(2) So the scum among them - the rotten "fundamentalists"
- need to be starved, bombed and exterminated to clear the mess.
Laurie Goodstein believes that Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell,
Pat Robertson and Jerry Vines are "using sharp language."
Believe me it is not. It is not because it is far sweeter than
the salt our noe-mods rub into our wounds, caused by the Americo-Israeli
bullets. Their salt goes deep down from the sounds to our soul.
Your are right dear Evangelicals, because we don't listen to our
neo-mod brothers, who repeatedly advise us: 1) "Allah, through
the Qur'an, tells Muslims to forgive injustices that Jews and
Christians commit against Muslims" [in other words accept
oppression - a formula, inapplicable to Iraqis or Afghans to let
them live without the much vaunted liberation]; 2) "the Israeli
occupation of Palestine is "perhaps central to Muslim grievance
against the West." Perhaps means, it may be not; 3) "The
Israeli government treats its one million Arab citizens "with
greater respect and dignity than most Arab nations treat their
citizens." (3) It means, your Evangelical leaders are not
using "sharp language" at all. It is we, the "fundamentalists"
among us, who need to be careful in our unprofessional and unethical
discourse.
It is really encouraging to know that across the US you are working
on "lectures and books criticizing Islam and promoting strategies
for Muslim conversions." And the good new of all is that
the crash course on Islam by Indianapolis group has trained 4,500
American Christians to proselytize Muslims. The news is great
because a proselytized Muslim is far better than a moderatised
Muslim.
Proselytizing does not hurt as much as listening from a non-Muslim
that "moderate Muslims" listen to "the claims of
the gospel," and abandon "the original meaning of scriptures
and the historical heritage." An appeal from Bob and Passantino
- "We should take advantage [of these moderates]" (4)
shows that you can probably not take as much advantage from the
proselytized Muslims as much as you can from the "moderates."
The New York Times criticized your leaders for "the basic
presumption that the world's two largest religions are headed
for a confrontation, with Christianity representing what is good,
true and peaceful, and Islam what is evil, false and violent."
Your president in the White House also believes so. So what is
the big deal if your Evangelical leaders also believe so? Your
mainstream media credits one and punishes other for the same thing
any way. At least, like your president, your religious leaders
do not have guns and bombs at their direct disposal to use against
Muslims.
Perhaps Laurie Goodstein should now visit the White House to attend
a far more offensive anti-Islam meeting than she did at your church
in Ohio. Or if she is a security threat at the White House, she
may consider reporting truth and noting but the truth from an
editorial board meeting from her employer's office.
End Notes:
1. Goodstein, Laurie. (2003), "Seeing Islam as 'Evil' Faith,
Evangelicals Seek Converts," The New York Times, May 27.
2. Haqqani, Husain (2003), "The American Mongols," Foreign
Policy Magazine, May/June 2003.
3. M.A. Muqtedar Kahn, "A Memo to American Muslims,"
Column on Islamic Affairs, at: http://www.ijtihad.org/memo.htm
4. [4] Bob and Passantino, Gretchen (2001), "Islam: Moderate
and Peace Loving or Radical and Violent?" Answers in Action,
P.O. Box 2067, Costa Mesa, California 92628, see http://answers.org/cultsandreligions/islampeace.html
|
|
